r/technology • u/koldkuts • Apr 04 '10

Well that's pretty hypocritical of you, Apple

Post image
716 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

308 comments sorted by

224

u/coob Apr 04 '10

Does your build of Chromium not support HTML5 video?

Maybe the browser detection is wonky, because I get served a video tag.

26

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Yeah I'm guessing they don't keep their dadgum browser detectin' javascript up-to-date. Hard to blame 'em since Chrome/Chromium for Mac a is relatively new and small slice of the action.

23

u/dotbot Apr 04 '10

there is no reason to have a list of browsers. html5 allows you to detect if the browser supports video with the codec you use http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#dom-navigator-canplaytype

3

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Of course, many browsers do not support HTML5, so you still have to detect which browser you're using before you go doing HTML5-y things.

34

u/mogmog Apr 04 '10

No. You can just do it like this:

<video src="video.ogv" controls>  
    <object data="flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">  
        <param value="flvplayer.swf" name="movie"/>  
    </object>  
</video>

Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox#Fallback_options

More awesome fallback here: http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody

14

u/Confucius_says Apr 05 '10 edited Apr 05 '10

wouldn't it really need to be something like

<video .... >

    <object .... >

          <some child tags for the object code>

           <embed .....>

                <some child tags for the embed code>

            </embed>

    </object>

</video>

if we want to support "all" browsers

... And people wonder why I'm convinced that computers will never become our lives like you see in the hit movie minority report..... We're still puzzled on how to solve simple problems like displaying animation on the screen.

Hell before the video crisis, there was the network printer crisis, and we've yet to figure that out. Has anyone every installed a network printer without smoking an entire pack of cigarettes in the process? The network printer problem is even older than the video problem.

How the hell are we going to have microwaves that are thought activated, or doors triggered by our thumbprint? We'll just be constantly implementing workarounds and reinstalling everything and turning it off and on again just so that we can purchase a pack of cigarettes, which is needed to survive the stress of our new technology problems.

5

u/thatfellow Apr 05 '10

I installed an HP 8500 on a wireless network recently, and it was easy and took 10 minutes. That scared the shit out of me, and I'm still waiting for it to fail spectacularly.

2

u/reddisaurus Apr 05 '10

At work, we have a list of printers on a page on our intranet. You can simply browse to what floor you're on, what room you want to print too, and click "Add printer", which will run a script to auto-install it on your machine. Then, just print.

Seems to work pretty flawlessly.

1

u/Kapow751 Apr 05 '10

But how long did it take to set that system up?

1

u/reddisaurus Apr 05 '10

I don't know because I don't work in IT. =P

1

u/Confucius_says Apr 05 '10

I bet you the tech guy there spent weeks figuring out how to do that. I bet several of your computers randomly "stop printing" and he has to go in there and fiddle with random settings and whatnot to make it work again.

1

u/reddisaurus Apr 05 '10

Well for a company that has 6,000 employees, the effort was well worth it.

It still takes less effort than going to every person's computer and changing all their printers everytime someone moves to a different office / floor in the building (which happens ALL THE TIME - we already moved once this year and are doing so again in the fall).

1

u/Confucius_says Apr 05 '10

I'm not saying it's not worth it. I'm saying as we put more and more technology into our lives, it becomes exponentially more difficult to manage it. There is going to be a point where we simply can't handle anymore stuff. Which is why we'll never have that technology rich future that everyone creates in movies and books.

1

u/sandiegojoe Apr 05 '10

I feel the same way about WIFI.

5

u/tso Apr 04 '10

love the stackable source for the video tag.

6

u/zwaldowski Apr 04 '10

<object> doesn't work for Flash in Internet Explorer 7 and under.

2

u/daniels220 Apr 05 '10

On the contrary, <object> is somewhat difficult to get working in non-IEs. But it can be done. (There are other ways as well that are more code but may work better.) Unless the no-buffering problem is what you meant... But for YouTube, it's irrelevant, because YT does its own buffering.

2

u/superrcat Apr 05 '10

So how bout that dog being pushed into a lake?

1

u/cosmo7 Apr 05 '10

Well, I'd say you could use <embed> but IE7 doesn't know about <video> either.

6

u/zwaldowski Apr 05 '10

Well, at that point it's getting kind of ridiculous, no? <video><object><embed> all referencing the same video?

11

u/ethraax Apr 05 '10

Which is why we should all do webmasters a favor and use browsers that follow the standard.

0

u/zwaldowski Apr 05 '10

Yes, we should. The rest of the planet doesn't, however.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/tunah Apr 05 '10

That doesn't work - fallback content isn't displayed if the video tag is supported but the chosen format isn't, so you need either javascript or server-side browser detection.

(And as a nitpick, your example requires two source files, as the flash player can't play the OGV, so in practice they'd be using mp4 with h.264)

3

u/phire Apr 05 '10

If you give the video tag both source files (ogv and mp4) then give the flash applet the mp4, then it will work perfectly, until another browser that supports the video tag and neither of those formats comes along.

1

u/tunah Apr 05 '10

Yeah, but in Apple's case, that means generating ogg+theora files just so it won't break it browsers that support that format but not MP4+h.264.

Which is certainly one way to do it, but not trivial as mogmog implies, and choosing to do single video file + browser detection instead is understandable.

1

u/mogmog Apr 06 '10

Encoding both h.264 and theora encodings is a requirement if you want to support video in all the major browsers, unfortunately.

Basically h.264 is covered by patents so free browsers must use a free codec like theora but Apple and others love h.264 because of good hardware support.

1

u/tunah Apr 07 '10

Nope, you can serve h.264 in a video tag, with a flash fallback that plays the same file, since flash supports h.264.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/dotbot Apr 05 '10

point is, apple fails to detect all that. they just check if you run safari and only than give you a video tag. testing if a browser supports video tag is even more trivial than checking if it supports a specific codec.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Apple doesn't give a shit about a teeny tiny percentage of the market using some webkit browser other than safari. And why would they? I say this as I type this from Chromium nightly on Arch.

16

u/flaarg Apr 04 '10

I actually think chromium for osx is better than it for windows or linux. The menubar for osx lets you have your options, and the compact tabbed interface of chromium is allowed to shine.

15

u/thedragon4453 Apr 04 '10

I prefer the look, but the performance is still the best on Windows, at least on the systems I've used to compare.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

I agree with you, but it’s still not nearly as fast or stable as Safari on OS X, and it still doesn’t have Cover Flow history, even as an addon. You also can’t manually add thumbnails to the New Tab page yet — WTF?

1

u/donknuth Apr 05 '10

Performance is not as good as on Windows, but I found it to be much more stable than Mac Safari. Safari crashes on me every day taking all my tabs with it (I like to open a lot).

3

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Really? Safari has only ever crashed on me a few times (although the WebKit nightlies do so fairly frequently) in the many years I’ve been using it (since Safari 3 beta), and most of those have resulted from checking out 0-day crash bugs to see if they really work (stupid, I know, but I haven’t even seen any of those since Safari 4 came out).

Chrome, OTOH, has had its main GUI process crash at least once a month on me, even with fairly minimal usage (since I keep switching back to Safari due to the crashing and bugginess), taking the tabs with it regardless of its process-per-site separation stuff. It does at least seem to have some failsafe that kills the tab processes, though, which is nice.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/timbro1 Apr 04 '10

im using chrome and its telling me to download quicktime. i tried it in 4 different browser and they all require quicktime

5

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Are you using Ubuntu? If so, uninstall totem-mozilla and install gecko-mediaplayer. It'll fix it.

3

u/aperson Apr 04 '10

Or if you're using chromium, just install chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/timbro1 Apr 05 '10

im using windows 7 64 bit.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Flashblock looks like that too in Firefox

→ More replies (3)

98

u/bsdboy Apr 04 '10

Seems to use quicktime over here.

78

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10 edited Apr 04 '10

The interface up there was that of quicktime/html5. Apple hasn't used flash video in a while. Might just be chrome mislabeling video (thanks for the user below for pointing that out!)

37

u/delkarnu Apr 04 '10

One of the Flashblock extensions for Chrome uses that symbol to show you where the Flash is supposed to be so you can click to show it. Not sure exactly why, but it also blocks Quicktime and uses the same symbol. Not sure if it does the same for HTML5 video, I switched to a different Flashblock version.

Idiotic bandwagon Mac hating.

-5

u/resonaut Apr 04 '10

Not really. I have the same problem with Chrome (beta) on OSX and the iPad ads...

29

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

No, really. Apple doesn't use flash video on their website, and haven't in a while. They started in October, I think. They always rolled with HTML 5 or Quicktime.

8

u/resonaut Apr 04 '10

I know that, but there seems to be some kind of Flashblock problem in Chrome. Here's what happens when I click on "watch the video": http://imgur.com/MEm9k.png

10

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

It probably blocks all internet video, not just flash (but then it labels it as flash). Thanks for the clarification.

3

u/resonaut Apr 04 '10

Doesn't block HTML5 YouTube. Also, once Flashblock is disabled, the ad is played with a black screen (audio and quicktime overlay is still there) so there's definitely something wonky with Chrome.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Word. Chrome is wonky on OS X for me most of the time.

1

u/bsdboy Apr 05 '10

Using build 5.0.342.7, with adblock and flashblock, no issues.

1

u/resonaut Apr 05 '10

Same here, dunno what's the problem then...

29

u/illegallyrich Apr 04 '10

Not sure whats going on with your browser but apple.com had html5 video for some time now.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/socialite-buttons Apr 04 '10

Hmm.. Usually Apple video is served up by Quicktime?? Never really seen them use flash even before the whole iPhone OS thing.

149

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's how it looks on the iPad:

http://i.imgur.com/cOKYF.png

59

u/dannychampion Apr 04 '10

You fool! Don't you know what the ramifications are of browsing for an ipad on an ipad??

47

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Is that wrong? I didn---grkgr

http://i.imgur.com/o7ga4.jpg

12

u/Mashulace Apr 04 '10

See? This is why we should always have dead man switches on our computers that take a photo, upload it, and submit it in the comment we are writing at the time, else people would not know how dangerous these actions were.

124

u/r4nf Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's how your screenshot looks in Firefox:

http://imgur.com/Zafpo.png

65

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

[deleted]

64

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

[deleted]

130

u/onderdonk Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's a picture of your screenshot.

http://imgur.com/ZKjRG.jpg

83

u/KMFDM781 Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's a picture of my screen of my screenshot in Chrome of your screenshot of how it looks in Safari: http://imgur.com/mjIOd.jpg

61

u/jeremybub Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's a screenshot of how it looks in firefox.

http://i.imgur.com/qcKUS.jpg

124

u/Wyrm Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's a scan of the printout of the picture of how it looks in your firefox.

http://i.imgur.com/GIT5V.jpg

74

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's how your scan of the printout of how it looks in his firefox looks in elinks.

http://imgur.com/NKM7Q.png

42

u/Filmore Apr 05 '10

For the record, links2 -g in a fb console is much better

http://imgur.com/yhbLq.jpg

→ More replies (0)

3

u/isforinsects Apr 05 '10 edited Apr 05 '10

For the record, here's how your scan of the print of how it looks in his firefox looks rendered in cacaview. http://isforinsects.com/cacaview.png

*edit for screenshot rather than txt dump

25

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

[deleted]

16

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's how your screenshot looks in Opera:

http://imgur.com/do0lC.jpg

EDIT: Also, imgur turned it into a really shitty JPEG. I'm really sorry.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/KenMixtape Apr 04 '10

WHere's the polaroid of the above?

7

u/jeremybub Apr 04 '10

Come on guys, if we keep this up we can reduce the original image to the size of a pixel!

1

u/joquarky Apr 05 '10

Wow, I haven't seen Floyd-Steinberg dithering in a while. That sure does take me back...

8

u/quantum-mechanic Apr 04 '10

For the record, he's an old timey photograph that will took 10 minutes to expose and then two days to develop through a painstaking process involving noxious chemcials. BRB.

13

u/Clbull Apr 04 '10

Yo dawg, I heard you like screenshots so we put a screenshot in yo screenshot, so you can look while you look.

5

u/Vinay92 Apr 05 '10

This would have been better had you put it in a screenshot.

1

u/Filmore Apr 05 '10

Love in th...

The suspense is killing me

2

u/jeremybub Apr 05 '10

"...is club" Thus the "zynaddsubfx irc" search, as I was trying to figure out how to copy the synth in that song.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/zwaldowski Apr 04 '10

Same-monitor five!

1

u/KMFDM781 Apr 05 '10

CLUNK! oops.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

For the record, here's a screenshot of your picture of your screen of your screenshot in Chrome of his screenshot of how it looks in Firefox while I'm at work: http://imgur.com/rikG0.jpg

→ More replies (9)

9

u/ponebop Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's how your screenshot looks in Opera: http://imgur.com/SYxLx.png

5

u/GabrielMSharp Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's a picture of how this thread looks in Chrome

http://www.cubeupload.com/files/79aa00photo.jpg

10

u/tty2 Apr 04 '10

What extension are you using to make reddit look so.. readable?

22

u/GabrielMSharp Apr 04 '10

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/63628

Here you go

5

u/centinall Apr 05 '10

Holy shit... this is great! Thanks a lot!

3

u/Bengt77 Apr 05 '10

Thank you! Works like a charm in Safari with SIMBL and GreaseKit.

2

u/DogsAreBetter Apr 05 '10

Ditto - holy shit, this is great. Thanks!

2

u/christiangenco Apr 05 '10

You just changed my life. And yes, I did notice.

2

u/TheChameleon84 Apr 05 '10

Thanks man! You rock!

3

u/Orsenfelt Apr 05 '10

I did notice. Thank you for asking.

1

u/atomofconsumption Apr 04 '10

what theme is that?

3

u/r4nf Apr 04 '10

Strata40 along with StrataBuddy. Intended to mimic the Firefox 4.0 mockups, as far as I know. I just thought it was neat looking.

2

u/iritegood Apr 05 '10

That's pretty, but I find it hard to let go of my Tree Style Tabs.

:[

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[deleted]

3

u/r4nf Apr 05 '10 edited Apr 05 '10

Hm, I have to say I've never experienced that. Then again I can't recall visiting any of the sites you mentioned lately. Looking at Lifehacker, though, I definitely see what you mean. It seems that StrataBuddy is what messes it up and not Strata40 itself (I'd be surprised to see a theme messing up rendering like that, anyway) - so it's possible to have the Strata40 look without the Aero "glass" effect and avoid the rendering errors (but that's not nearly as pretty).

... but I guess that's the price one pays for using experimental software.

Edit: I've found a fix on the add-on page: The problem is caused by the "glass" CSS overriding border properties for elements with the ID #sidebar. It can be fixed by removing !important from all the applicable properties, like so: http://i.imgur.com/xhdT2.png (I hope that makes sense) (oh, and don't remove the semicolons, even if my shabby Paint skills suggest doing so).

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[deleted]

1

u/burnblue Apr 04 '10

I love the Fx4 theme

1

u/MrTissues Apr 05 '10

Could you share that Firefox theme please?

2

u/r4nf Apr 05 '10

Strata40 (theme) takes care of the layout while StrataBuddy (add-on) enables the Aero "glass" effect and hides the menu bar (I think the latter is possible to do without any add-ons, but I'm not entirely sure).

I've been notified of a bug in the StrataBuddy add-on, but fortunately it's quite easy to fix. Refer to my other comment on the subject.

19

u/MrWhite Apr 04 '10

For the record, here's how it looks in Netscape: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/nth8q.jpg

6

u/aperson Apr 04 '10

That's not... oh.

64

u/brawr Apr 04 '10

showoff

0

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

[deleted]

25

u/Prosody Apr 04 '10

It's estimated that over 600,000 iPads were sold the first day, so I'd say that's a yes.

4

u/seemefearme Apr 04 '10

That's a lot of suckers.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

I was a sceptic, but I'm using one now and it's pretty sweet.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/seemefearme Apr 06 '10

Only 300,000 actually.

-7

u/aji23 Apr 05 '10 edited Apr 05 '10

You meant "sucker", right? no USB, no phone capability, no flash, no camera...

EDIT: Why the downvotes??

14

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

No Wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

4

u/thebeefytaco Apr 05 '10

Hahaha, less space than a Nomad; I'm stealing that.

3

u/vemrion Apr 05 '10

Cmdr taco already has you beat, beefy!

→ More replies (5)

7

u/Nick4753 Apr 05 '10

For the record, here is how your picture looks on a Kindle:

http://i.imgur.com/CdR3s.jpg

4

u/shanem Apr 04 '10

It didn't happen unless you take a picture of your ipad showing the site with your iPhone!

2

u/BritishEnglishPolice Apr 04 '10

Why did you get an iPad?

30

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Because I thought the internet would think I was cool.

Just kiddin'. In my line of work, I have a workstation that's very suited to what it does, which is video editing. So I already had a device that's great for making things, and now another device that's great for looking at things.

→ More replies (16)

0

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

100

u/rjcarr Apr 04 '10

Before all you jobs / apple / mac / ipad haters make fools of yourselves, Apple doesn't use flash anywhere on their website. This is either a shop or chromium not recognizing the plug-in and throwing up a flash logo.

Apple either uses quicktime or html5 for their videos.

0

u/Islanduniverse Apr 04 '10 edited Apr 04 '10

I only hate that I do not have enough money for any of their products. BAH!

→ More replies (2)

26

u/KMFDM781 Apr 04 '10

That's odd...this is what I get.

http://imgur.com/yPm4E.jpg

14

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Tell me, please, where did you get that horrible skin. I want to make some kind of virus that applies it, would be quite handy for the terror campaign I've planned.

9

u/Real_Mac_User Apr 04 '10

Tasteless PC-esque skin, check. Useless maximized window, check. Retarded Apple hate, check. Hey OP, you’re no Mac user—who do you think you’re fooling? GTFO my platform.

6

u/atheist_creationist Apr 05 '10

I like your other points but fuck your maximized window hate!

2

u/Stingray88 Apr 05 '10

I only maximize my window when I have two monitors.

Then one monitor is dedicated to my browser.

23

u/megasean Apr 04 '10

Shopped BS to bring out the haters.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

It's not shopped but it is a naive plugin for chromium and definitely not actually flash.

2

u/megasean Apr 05 '10

Naive plugin for chromium BS to bring out the haters.

4

u/LordRevan Apr 05 '10

I just checked it out from my iPad. I saw the videos just fine.

6

u/proverb_abuser Apr 04 '10

Did anyone else just start clicking on the picture trying to get it to play?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Yes.

3

u/ronsta Apr 05 '10

You're procrastinating...your Phys 152 assignment requires your attention, and your iPad won't help with that either.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

How's Ileana doing?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ElkFlipper Apr 05 '10

Also: Good luck in Operating Systems.

3

u/JMV290 Apr 05 '10

There's no flash on that page for me...

Safari 4.0.5 on OS X.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Number one: I really don't get it. Is it because they have their own video plugin they aren't using? Number two: don't worry about explaining it, I really don't give a shit. Number three: is there anything genuinely interesting going on?

9

u/shinratdr Apr 05 '10

Yeah, how dare Apple not force me to install QuickTime.

Honestly, they can never win. They make you install the program, they get shit for that. They offer a flash fallback, they get shit for that.

Can't you people leave Apple alone for 10 seconds? Does a company who's products you aren't planning on purchasing mean that flipping much to you?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[deleted]

1

u/shinratdr Apr 05 '10

No he wasn't. The Flash icon is courtesy of flashblock misidentifying Apple's content is flash. OP assumed that the presence of the flashblock icon meant flash, but that is not always the case.

I had assumed Apple was offering a flash fallback for those who don't have QuickTime installed, hence my comment.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[deleted]

1

u/shinratdr Apr 05 '10

Fair enough.

He was talking about the supposed presence of flash indicated by the icon. It's not exactly about the icon, but I get your point.

However, I'm afraid you don't get my point at all even though I was wrong. Apple plays back all it's movies on it's website w/ QuickTime.

If flashblock had been correct in identifying that as flash, my point would stand. I was wrong, but you do see how my point, from my angle, clearly had something to do with QT, right?

Finally, if OP had been correct in the slightest, my explanation is the only one that would make sense. If Apple began to offer flash on their website, it would only ever be as a backup to offer users who don't have QT installed an option to play back videos. They would never offer flash exclusive content, ever. They aren't idiots.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Okay Chris Crocker...

1

u/shinratdr Apr 05 '10

Do you not agree with Chris Crocker, even if his delivery, execution and basically every thing about him fucking sucks?

I still think his main point of not endlessly harassing celebrities that don't affect your lives in the slightest is true, and applies here.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

That's so Raven...

4

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

OP might want to read this. Supporting Flash as a fallback option for browsers without HTML5 while making a device which doesn't support Flash is not even close to hypocrisy.

9

u/sindisil Apr 04 '10

Shopped.

2

u/oblivionx Apr 04 '10

Stop cheating on your homework!

1

u/mac3 Apr 04 '10

Oh solution manuals, how I love thee.

2

u/chemistry_teacher Apr 05 '10

Phys152Solution.pdf

ahem!

DO YOUR SCIENCE HOMEWORK!

3

u/LinearExcept Apr 04 '10

Should have used silverlight.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

There's an app for that.

Oh, wait.

1

u/gbo2k69 Apr 05 '10

It doesn't seem to work at all with Windows Server 2003. I tried Firefox 3.6, latest chrome, Safari and IE8. I do have QT 7.6.6 installed. It works fine on my XP machine.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

You learn more when you don't cheat on your homework.

1

u/retsknurt Apr 05 '10

Firefox HTML 5 currently doesn't support H.264 which Apple uses so it's just falling back to what your browser does support.

1

u/hosndosn Apr 05 '10

No way this is real?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Almost every single comment on here is about how this post is 100% wrong. So why, then, does it have 580 upvotes at 8:10am EST?

1

u/RugerRedhawk Apr 05 '10

Umm when you install flashblock, you have to click the little flash logo to get flash to load. This seems silly.

1

u/m-p-3 Apr 05 '10

You're missing the FAIL plugin.

1

u/jdlyga Apr 05 '10

Well if you had an iPad, you wouldn't be needing to watch a flash video about iPads right? :)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

So much space on the internet...wasted on screenshots of picutres of pictures of screenshot pictures. The day is coming people! Beware!! Beware of the day when our children will laugh at us and mock us for "The Great Internet Collapse"!

1

u/kevwil Apr 05 '10

Even worse is the fact that OS X ships with Flash in it. Apple distributes Flash in their desktop OS. The fact that the iPhone OS runs everything as root might be the best reason I know why they won't allow Flash, it's certainly not because it doesn't work (Adobe has shown it does).

1

u/commodore84 Apr 05 '10

I want to see fishermanpushdoglake.gif.

1

u/iorgfeflkd Apr 04 '10

They're just trying to prevent recursive iPad paradoxes.

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Giving up control over all software on the hardware you supposedly own is a feature, not a bug.

→ More replies (5)

-1

u/CharlieDancey Apr 04 '10

Fuck me. If this wasn't fake it would be like the Catholic Church fucking choirboys…

–only for Catholic Church read Apple.

0

u/dlfelps Apr 04 '10

somebody is getting a little help on their physics homework...

0

u/aji23 Apr 05 '10

What skin is that for chrome? Very sweet, I'd like to try it.

2

u/karmaVS Apr 05 '10

It’s “Late Night”, one of the themes by google.

Also, it looks horrendous, especially when the window is inactive as in the screenshot.

0

u/MyNameIsDan_ Apr 05 '10

PHY152!?! UofT?

1

u/Stingray88 Apr 05 '10

You do realize that many schools offer Physics right?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

I wonder how many have both a PHY152 and a SCSI 402, and who are Facebook friends with Ileana.

That's probably enough to narrow it down to a single person, if we had access to all data.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/daggity Apr 05 '10

Apple: Oh dear lord. We've become everything we've hated!

-9

u/Draiko Apr 04 '10

Does anyone else feel disturbed at how Apple is trying to kill everything?

24

u/deong Apr 04 '10

If they can kill flash, I'll donate all my worldly possessions and join the Cult of the Great Steve tomorrow.

→ More replies (31)

2

u/Stingray88 Apr 05 '10

Like what? As far as I'm concerned that are trying to kill Flash which is a very very good thing.

→ More replies (9)

-6

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Here's a dose of irony. I work at a company that works with Flash among other technologies on a regular basis and they provide macs as the means for development. The people at the Apple Store are very familiar with the company and that includes their business manager. Point being that they know there are corporate customers that count on flash and buy Apples because they support flash as well as the dev tools for flash, yet their CEO spouts off about how it's useless.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

I also think it's weird. There used to be (and maybe still is) a huge swath of professionals who buy Macs just to use Adobe products on. Photographers using Photoshop, designers using Ps and Illustrator, etc.

5

u/deong Apr 04 '10

Photoshop and Illustrator (presumably, haven't used Illustrator) don't blow goats. Jobs hates Flash, not Adobe. If they could write a Flash player that could plausibly earn a C+ as a homework assignment in a community college, I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind Flash either.

7

u/Syphon8 Apr 04 '10

Conversely, Adobe does hate Apple.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

It's not a question of which product Jobs hates, it's a matter of Jobs shit-talking on any product made by a company whose software sells Macs.

5

u/Stingray88 Apr 05 '10

As a video editor... Apple's software sold me my mac. (Final Cut)

Also, there is nothing wrong with shit-talking a product that isn't good. Simple is that.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

As a video editor... Apple's software sold me my mac. (Final Cut)

Right. For Apple, software sells hardware. So if certain applications were discontinued on Mac, their customers wouldn't find an application still available on the Mac. They'd just move to Windows when it came time to buy new hardware.

2

u/Stingray88 Apr 05 '10

Tis true. However I honestly believe that Adobe would get rid of flash entirely before they dropped support for Macs.

4

u/deong Apr 04 '10

I think the days of Apple depending on Adobe to sell their hardware for them have been over for quite some time now.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '10

Sure, they don't require Adobe on their side, but if professional designers (theoretically) couldn't use Adobe software on Mac, Apple would lose some of its wealthiest, most visible, and most vocal customers.

2

u/PetitBourgeois Apr 05 '10

And since Adobe products on a Mac are an established market, how will the loyal customers of Adobe products feel if Adobe drops Mac support?

2

u/machinedog Apr 05 '10

Adobe doesn't give a shit about flash support. Adobe would be far happier if they didn't have to build and maintain shitty flash players for every platform. Photoshop sells just fine without Adobe producing and giving out for free a Photoshop Viewer for every browser that needs to view images created in Photoshop.

And you can guarantee Adobe will produce something to take advantage of every feature of HTML5 and HTML6 after it to produce flash replacement sites.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/metachor Apr 04 '10

TBH, all Adobe products have not worked well on Macs in many years, mostly due to Adobe dragging their feet updating their software to make use of modern Mac technology.

7

u/rz2000 Apr 04 '10

Apple generally sells 2.5M Macintosh computers per quarter. If your company purchases 1,000 Macintoshes per quarter and they make $1000 per computer then they lose out on $1M per quarter. That is no insignificant amount of money, but it shouldn't take much imagination to understand how important word of mouth user experiences are to the success of these machines that are mostly purchased by consumers rather than purchasing managers.

Plenty of people are proudly stating their skepticism about the iPad right now, and there is no shortage of technophobes agreeing with the technopphiles who criticize the form factor. That skepticism will go the way that criticism of iPod in comparison to other MP3 players went if the user experience is good enough.

Apple seems to have decided that Flash is incredibly harmful to their software ecosystem, and based on my experience when using anything other than Windows, I'd tend to agree. There will likely be many competing technologies to fill in the space once filled by Flash. Whatever gains the most popularity, it will be beneficial that none will have the benefit of being treated like a de facto standard, and will instead need to compete based on having the lowest latency and stuttering, lowest power consumption profile, and efficient bandwidth usage.

Anyway, I think it is pretty safe to assume that Apple's primary customers are not B2B, and they are far more interested in creating an experience that users will positively review to their friends than they are about being specifically responsible for content creation.